You can make an argument (Krugman does) that we're in a big enough shortfall of aggregate demand (AD-shock) that the Keynesian multiplier is huge. I think he was arguing for seven last time I was looking closely. That's high enough that tax revenue would actually go up by more than spending, which would mean that there is a real magic money tree.

The economics is pretty solid there. Doesn't cover everything, but what it covers is solid.

The biggest thing is misses is that, for a government, inputs and outputs are connected to each other in a way that a family's (or any other private actor's, even a really big company's) aren't, which is why there is such a thing as a Keynesian multiplier.

There's also a bunch of stuff about the money illusion and seignorage that it misses, which is very relevant in the banking-crisis situation we're (still) in. But, to be fair, that would completely ruin the analogy to a family...

But the point for governments is that part of their income derives from their own spending. So, if they spend more, then the economy gets bigger, and so does their tax revenue. It's actually true for any actor in the economy - when you spend money, the whole economy gets bigger. You're 1/100,000,000 of the economy (or so), so if you spent a million quid, you'd get 1p better off.

You can actually see this happen in a small enough real economy: football.

Manchester City started spending money like crazy and the whole football economy got richer, resulting in players that City sold selling for more than they would have done before - so their revenues in the player market went up noticeably (but not as much as their spending!).

In certain circumstances (AD-shock recessions; the), Keynes reckoned that increased government spending would result in the economy growing by more than the amount of spending. At the moment, I've heard estimates that the multiplier is about seven, so increasing government spending by £1bn would result in £7bn of economic growth (and about £2bn of additional tax revenue). Yes, it's a magic money tree. It's real; it works. But only when the economy is totally dire.

The problem with the Keynesian multiplier is the same as the problem with the Laffer Curve - it tempts politicians to increase spending / cut taxes (things that they want to do anyway) by positing that it won't actually cost money. They're both right, but only in certain (rare) circumstances. The top of the Laffer curve is somewhere around 75% marginal tax, which is why cutting the top rate from 50% to 45% won't increase revenues. Keynes only works in a severe negative demand-shock (where there's lots of unused resources that the Keynesian spending can put into use without opportunity costs). Brown and Balls were trying to argue that their deficit spending in the mid-2000s wasn't a problem because it was investment (infrastructure) spending, which is trying to invoke the Keynesian multiplier but in a completely inappropriate situation.

OK, that DOES kind of make sense. I should make more of an effort to understand this stuff, I guess. But then I am happy to defer to people who DO know (so long as they are people I trust like you and millennium and Mat); the corrollorary of that is that I expect people to defer to me on stuff *I'm* expert in; sadly Doctor Who and Blake's 7 are not often brought up as areas of urgent govt policy... ;)

Hm, that gallup poll in that article... I have no reason to believe Americans more or less stupid on some inherent genetic level than any other population of humans inhabiting this planet, and there are also countries out there with high levels of religiosity where 'young-earth creationism' is less prevalent.

The real problem, I believe, is rooted in the education system, and not even in the STEM subjects, but rather in basic literacy skills. You'd be surprised how many people graduate from high school in this country who do not read on what is considered to be a high school level. Many do not read on an 8th grade level, which is the cut-off point under which a person is considered "functionally illiterate".

The way in which local school systems receive federal funding is based upon "performance" and attendance, which pushes schools to keep as many seats as possible filled with warm bodies and advance as many of those bodies through each grade as possible. Students who might benefit from repeating a grade, or from extra tutoring or special education often are pushed on unready for the next step, and over time they fall further and further behind their peers.

(Parents who don't instill any sense of value for education in their offspring are also a factor, but that of course is outside of a school's control).

Simply put, not only does this system produce an overabundance of individuals who cannot comprehend science or history texts, they also cannot even read their Bible. Beliefs are often formed solely by whatever is coming from the pulpit on Sunday morning and repeated throughout the week by family & peers, and little else. There's not even any room for "critical thinking skills" to come in, because you're dealing with people who can't fucking read.

You can't even begin to explain that the books in the Bible were largely not written for simple historical or informative purposes, anyway. It is at most a narrative history. The Old Testament especially is rooted an ancient oral tradition passed via memorization and repetition from one generation to the next, which allowed a nomadic and often oppressed people to retain their culture, religion and heritage surrounded by fairly hostile neighbors. It's a very old style of story-telling that has more to do with meaning (often on multiple levels) than facts - but trying to explain such subtleties to people who struggle with even simple metaphors is a bit of a lost cause.

Honestly this is all driven by a political situation that has little to do with either science or faith, anyway. It is in the vested interest of various parties to keep the general public as ignorant and easily manipulated as possible and this creationism thing that is promoted as part of a whole "package" of political social conservatism that also includes your usual anti-environmentalism & misogynist policies that benefit certain industries & individuals...

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).